The annual Elizabeth Colson Lecture, sponsored by the Refugee Studies Centre and given
Bibliographic record
Abstract
of Manchester, a department founded by Max Gluckman in 1949 in what was sometimes referred to as a kind of colonizing movement from Oxford. Gluckman attracted a small group of colleagues with whom he had worked at the Rhodes Livingstone Institute in Zambia (now the Institute for Social Research at the University of Zambia) and also in Oxford. One of the most influential members of the group was Elizabeth Colson. Although she was in Manchester for only three years, she played a key part in giving the Department its characteristic approach to the subject, an approach which was still much in evidence when we arrived there in 1971. Perhaps the most general feature of this approach was a concern to understand change and process, and a consequent emphasis on extended periods of observation. In Elizabeth’s case, this led to a lifetime’s commitment to long-term fieldwork amongst the Gwembe Tonga of Zambia. To use a terminology that will figure largely in what I have to say in this lecture, she played a key part in the ‘production ’ of that place, an academic ‘site ’ which came to be designated by a geographical label: the ‘Manchester School ’ of anthropology. And then, when we came to Oxford in 1996 and I started work at the Refugee Studies Programme, as it then was, I found that here was another ‘place’, which had been, not colonized, but ‘Colsonized’. Elizabeth, I discovered, had put her considerable academic, intellectual and professional weight behind the Programme when it needed it most. Together with its first Director, Barbara Harrell-Bond, and Belinda Allan, its Development Officer, she helped to give it its distinctive and continuing concern to understand the impact of forced displacement on the lives of ordinary people and, just as important, to find ways of translating that understanding into improved policy and practice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.022 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".